Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Actually Diablo III is more than capable of continuing the series. They don't even need a boss that makes perfect sense. They could just as easily bring Deckard Cain back (which they did, actually... Still alive somehow? Suspicious no?) and reveal him to be some sort of super-evil demon boss.

Diablo fans would clap their hands and smile. The reason for this is: Diablo sequels don't need to add more than items, classes, graphics, and the etc. we've come to love.
That may sound a bit bland... But can you honestly say you wouldn't buy Diablo III for the coop, classes, new everything, better graphics, and new things to kill? Diablo II still has a huge fanbase even after all this time. Regular and expansion.

Edit: I bought Assassin's Creed on the 360. Great game, best level design I've ever seen in there... Oh wow... That game just blew me away I can't believe so many people disliked parts of it. Though I admit, the quests were terrible. Doing the same things over and over again gets repetative.
I can play Crysis! I'm one of the only people on Supreme Commander that's not too much of a wuss to play 80x80 maps either. World Domination anyone? :P

^
While most would probably be getting the game without a doubt, I'm pretty sure most if not all of us would like to be impressed by it rather than being let down by it instead. Whether it be through lore or gameplay or any other aspect of the game. Blizzard always wants to make a classic remember

Anyway while we're on the topic of computer requirements, I'm afraid unless we all get end-of-line-high-spec-machines the chances of having useable corpses in D3 are looking slim... =/

Quote:

The main reason for the corpses not being able to stay permanently is the potential number of them on screen at one time, and specifically that each corpse is affected by physics, allowing them to be blasted and thrown all over the place by the force of player abilities.

It's one of the trade offs when integrating new technology, you can get really awesome effects, but they do have a cost. In a 2D world, a sprite of a dead creature doesn't really cost any more (system requirement-wise) than a sprite of something that's alive. Probably less. In a 3D world where a creature dies and then needs to have physics calculations thrown onto it so it can bounce and fall and fly around, they cost substantially more.

We remember fondly those situations where you've just completely obliterated a camp of Fallen, and as you're picking up items - marvel in your destruction. That's a feeling and part of the gameplay where if we can realistically keep some of it without sacrificing features or having insane system requirements we'd definitely like to, but no promises.

MTV Multiplayer: Just to be clear, are we going to see a lot more rainbows during the game?

Wilson: [laughs] After the announcement, one of our environment artists went to the darkest area in Act One and put a giant rainbow across the whole area. No, you’re probably not going to see a ton of rainbows. But we don’t think the one that’s in there is that big a deal. You know it’s like, it’s a waterfall. My favorite [criticism] is the one that analyzed the light refraction angle, and told us why from that angle seeing a rainbow would actually be impossible. Oh yeah, and it was upside down because the colors were reversed. And we’re like, “This is a whole different world than ours! Who’s to say that light refracts the same in the Diablo world?” [laughs]

We don’t think it’s that big a deal; we just think it adds a lot of interest to that scene. We don’t have specific plans to fill “Diablo” with rainbows. It’s not like we restarted the project and were like “Diablo III — now with rainbows!” Although I will say the pitch that I originally did, once we decided what we were going to do, said “Diablo III — now with pants.” Because we added a pants slot.

Interesting and insightful read/interview to say the least Also is anyone else apart from me anticipating a secret rainbow level now?

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention Blizz also plans to implement 'achievements' across all their newer games now, starting with D3, SC2 and WOW:WOTLK, I presume. I guess this was probably one of the 'awesome things' that had install for Bnet2? Can't say I'm enthusiastic about it to be honest. But meh, whatever I'll just ignore if i don't like it lol =P
Source: http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/...l_games-2.html

__________________

http://www.freerice.com/ - For each word you get right, 10 grains of rice is donated through the UN to help end world hunger.